Bringing up baby

Rebecca Asher realised she was entering contentious territory in writing her new book about the stresses of motherhood. Here she addresses some of myths that need tackling if we are to develop more equal and effective arrangements for all parents.

In my book, Shattered: Modern Motherhood and the Illusion of Equality, I argue that, even after decades of apparent progress, women and men in the UK are still unhappily dragooned into quite distinct family roles, as main carers and main earners respectively. I think this is to the detriment of them and, most importantly, their children.

The book sets out to analyse why this polarisation persists and what we might learn from research and international practice about how to do things differently. Cue frenzied reaction on all sides in newspapers and on various websites. I wanted Shattered to spark this sorely needed debate but even so it was a welcome change of tempo to join others in discussing ‘Modern Parenting: Policy, politics and the illusion of equality’ in the august and reflective environment of the RSA.

My proposals for change include: overhauling maternity services so that fathers are better included; redesigning our uniquely unequal and gendered maternity and paternity leave system so that birth leave of just over a year is evenly split between men and women on a well-remunerated, ‘use it or lose it’ basis; a right to flexible working for all employees – not just parents – and more, and more affordable, childcare provision. I also believe that parents need to change their own behaviour, taking on raising their children as a shared enterprise. Hearteningly this analysis chimes with many who have reviewed the book and attended events such as that at the RSA.

Not everyone nods vigorously in agreement, of course. But, if anything, critical responses have increased my resolve: making me even more aware of the myths that pervade our society about the ‘best’ way to bring up children. Perhaps the most common among them is that it is most beneficial for young children to be cared for by one dedicated adult: the mother.

In fact evidence now suggests that a secure relationship with three main carers – a mother, father and perhaps a grandparent or other trusted adult – is most advantageous to a child’s social and emotional development. There is also a growing body of evidence to show that a father’s close involvement in the daily life of his child is to that child’s psychological and educational benefit.

Yet amongst the mother-centric critics, fathers are off the agenda and there is no early years’ alternative to exclusive mother-care except nurseries or child-minders, their apparent deficiencies ghoulishly dangled before us. But to claim that, across the board, formal care of this nature is worse for a child than care at home is to ignore the crucial issue of quality. If comparing ‘Walmart-style’ nursery care to home care then maybe the latter is better. However, high-quality nursery care has no significant ill effects on children: in fact it produces cognitive gains and puts them ahead of their peers when they start school. At the same time, low-quality care in the home is detrimental. The issue is more complex than the mother-centrics would allow.

Another pervasive myth is that women ‘choose’ to do (often low-status, low-paid) jobs that fit around childcare or, indeed, would rather not work at all. Various surveys and pieces of academic research are cited to back this up. I would argue against taking these findings at face-value: we need to factor in how difficult it is for women to commit themselves to both professional and family life in an environment where they are expected to be the main carer and where support from the state is patchy and expensive. Many decide that aiming lower professionally is the only way to make family life work in these challenging circumstances. It should come as no surprise that some declare that, if there were no financial need, they would rather give up on paid work altogether. Aside from what women ‘choose’, what about what men want? Or children? All this is meant to be ultimately in their young interests, after all.

The third big myth is that women are somehow designed to be the main carers of their children: they give birth and breastfeed, don’t they? In fact, UK breastfeeding rates are relatively low, and significantly lower than in the more sexually egalitarian Scandinavian countries for example, proving that biology and equality are not mutually exclusive. Fathers are just as able to carry out every other care task and of course they can also feed babies formula or expressed breast milk from a bottle. So beyond birth, and certainly beyond the first few weeks, there really should be a biological level playing field. Research shows that looking after children in itself encourages fathers to be more nurturing. Men simply need to be given the opportunity to form the same deep attachment as mothers, through generous paternity leave and flexible working provision.

We should take a step back here. If there really is a biological imperative for mothers to be their children’s main carers – or, indeed, if they freely ‘choose’ this – then what’s the point of educating and training women to the hilt only for their career wings to be inevitably clipped a decade or so down the line? Some argue that a decent parental leave and childcare system, plus flexible employer policies, are unaffordable. But it is the current approach that is financially and socially costly, and economically illiterate.

Progressives need to get proactive about busting such myths. The revolution in family and female life that was started in the 1960s and 70s must be completed. This would certainly be of benefit to mothers and fathers, who would then be able to flourish in their public and private roles. It would be to the great advantage of children, who would grow up with both parents closely involved in their daily lives. And it would pay dividends for society as a whole as we all reap the rewards of living in communities in which families enjoy more stable and happier lives.

You might also like

An incredible thing has happened. A man born in 1956 has become the new champion of those appalled by baby boomers' selfishness. Conservative MP David Willetts' book –The Pinch: How baby boomers stole their children's' future ...

6
Comments

Join the discussion

Today this problem is common all over the world. Now a days, both father and mother are working. Some parents didn't think about their children. They are alone and changing their activities. It leads to wrong habits.

Mark

3rd May 2011

It reads like I feel - common sense! As a father of a six month old baby boy who has had me home for periods of time and has benefited with a secure attachment to me. The bond is profound and natural fostering a more softer side to my life along side more joy outside of the paradigm of traditional roles. Roles are social constructs that suited some in an old epoch but feel outdated and defunct to mature intelligent creative beings who dont subscribe to the traditions of history.

Martin Sepion

3rd May 2011

My daughter is three months old and I miss her so much during the week when I am at work. I get a little time with her in the mornings but she is sleeping when I get home in the evenings. We both have supportive employers but feel there must be a better way to share the maternity/paternity leave. My partner would appreciate a little time for herself and her career and I would love to spend a bit more time with my little one. So I hope you can see that from one person's perspective this post is very welcome.

Jodykat

3rd May 2011

Hi Rebecca,

A thoughtful piece indeed. I particularly agree that it's time to stop our 'economically illiterate' behaviour around the effects of motherhood on women's careers (and children's upbringing).

The sexual revolution has freed women to advance their careers in parallel with men, yet we penalise them for becoming mothers. One of the effects of this is that many women are leaving their decision to become mothers much later than ever, and sadly it turns out that quite a few have a few years of utter panic to achieve this in their early 40s. And yet, if a woman 'fails' to have a longed for child, it can be very hard to feel like a 'real' woman...

There's a pressure cooker of biology, economics and social change here that a generation of women are struggling with: I call it 'the tunnel'. It's a generation caught-short by the have-it-all promise and often ending up childfree by circumstance, or just 'managing' to have a family in their mid 40s after 5 or more years of insane pressure and stress. Having been through this myself, I founded Gateway Women to "support women through the tunnel and off the scrapheap"

I admire your bravery in tackling the motherhood issue - it seems that we talk about these taboos at our peril, but talk about them we must. As a culture, we're either sticking our fingers in our ears and going 'la la la' or blaming women for being greedy/selfish/ungrateful/ambitious (delete as appropriate). Neither is particularly helpful.

I agree that the majority of the ideas here need to be tried out and potentially implemented: equal leave for parents, more flexible working conditions, and both parents being involved in their children's lives.

What's hard to agree with is pushing the responsibility for less expensive (yet good) childcare upon others, be it government, the providers, or insurers. Lower cost should equal lower quality no matter the industry, especially when it's a matter of people's time and training. Otherwise you're telling someone else to take a loss for the betterment of everyone else who's unable to provide themselves. The arrangement has to make sense for everyone involved.

After all, having children is a responsibility for the parents first and foremost, and if the parents are unwilling to think in terms of their own personal responsibilities first then are they helping - or hindering - society?